The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Rameshwar Deceased Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6351 MP

                             1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                       AT INDORE
                         BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

                 ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2022

             REVIEW PETITION No. 148 of 2022

     Between:-

     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
1.
     THROUGH COLLECTOR,
     INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. TEHSILDAR,
   TEHSIL SANWER (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
   SANWER (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                              .....PETITIONER

     (BY MS. VINITA PHAYE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

     AND

   SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED   THROUGH             LEGAL
   REPRESENTATIVES,
1. RAMPYARIBAI W/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR ,
   AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
   811, BHAGIRATHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED   THROUGH             LEGAL
   REPRESENTATIVES,
2. RAJBAHADUR S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR,
   AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
   811, BHAGIRATHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED   THROUGH             LEGAL
   REPRESENTATIVES,
   SHIVBAHADUR S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR,
   AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                             2

      OCCUPATION: LABOURER
      811, BHAGIRATHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
      SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED    THROUGH    LEGAL
      REPRESENTATIVES,
      VIJAYBAHADUR S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR,
4.
      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: LABOURER,
      811, BHAGIRATHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
      SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED    THROUGH    LEGAL
      REPRESENTATIVES,
      CHHOTELAL S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR,
5.
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: PUJARI
      811, BHAGIRATHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
      SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED    THROUGH    LEGAL
      REPRESENTATIVES,
      REGHUNANDAN S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR,
6.
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: LABOURER,
      811, BHAGIRATHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
      SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED    THROUGH    LEGAL
      REPRESENTATIVES,
7.    RAJENDRA S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR,
      AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
      811, BHAGIRATHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
      SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED    THROUGH    LEGAL
      REPRESENTATIVES,
8.    MUNNIBAI W/O SHRI RAJA D/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR,
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
      811, BHAGIRATHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
      SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED    THROUGH    LEGAL
      REPRESENTATIVES,
      SHOBHA W/O SHRI RAMNARAUYAN D/O LATE SHRI
9.    RAMESHWAR,
      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE,
      KUMHARKHARI (MADHYA PRADESH)
      SHRI    RAMESHWAR    DECEASED    THROUGH    LEGAL
      REPRESENTATIVES,
      SANTOSHBAI W/O SHRI ASHOK D/O LATE SHRI
10.   RAMESHWAR,
      AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE,
      MUSAKHERI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                   3

    SHRI  RAMESHWAR      DECEASED     THROUGH    LEGAL
    REPRESENTATIVES,
11. SHASHIKALA W/O SHRI DILIP D/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR,
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
    SHEETAL NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....RESPONDENTS

                            ORDER

1. Heard on IA No.508/2022 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing this review petition.

2. In the application the cause assigned is that sanction for filing the review petition took a considerable period of time as the same was required to be obtained from various departments upon receipt of which petition as been filed.

3. I am satisfied that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing this review petition. IA No.508/2022 is accordingly allowed and the delay in filing the petition is condoned.

4. This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been filed for review of judgment dated 23/09/2019 passed in Second Appeal No.606/2001 whereby the appeal preferred by petitioners / appellants has been dismissed.

5. The petition has been filed on the ground that the judgment has been passed beyond the substantial questions of law as were framed for determination in the appeal. The relevant Sections which have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment were not the subject matter of appeal. It is

submitted that the impugned judgment is beyond the pleadings of the parties. The question which was framed for determination was only in respect of a particular order passed by Revenue Authority whereas entire proceedings have been considered.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. The appeal had been admitted for hearing by order dated 25/08/2003 on the following substantial questions of law :-

"(1) Whether lower appellate court was justified in reversing the decree passed by the trial court which had dismissed the suit ?

(2) Whether finding of the lower appellate court that order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 dated 4.9.1990 in case No.18-A/90-B/3/36- 77 to be a void order is legally and factually sustainable and if so whether it satisfies the requirement of Section 11 (2) of the Act ?"

7. In the substantial question No.1 the entire judgment and decree passed by lower Appellate Court was opened for consideration in the appeal. The question did not confine hearing of the appeal in respect of any particular aspect and instead enlarged the scope in comprehensive manner. Though question No.2 was also framed but that was in addition to question No.1 and was not the only question for determination. The instant petition has primarily been filed on the ground that by impugned judgment provision of Section 5 of M.P. Ceiling on Agriculture

Holdings Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder have been considered whereas the lower Appellate Court had only decided the matter on interpretation of Section 11 of the Act, 1960 and not Section 5 and Rule 7.

8. A perusal of the judgment passed by lower Appellate Court reveals that it had taken into consideration the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder and had held that sale had been effected in favour of plaintiff hence notice was also required to be issued to him prior to passing of draft statement under Section 11 which has not been done hence the proceedings are not binding upon the plaintiff. Hence it cannot be said that the impugned judgment was beyond the scope of pleadings of the parties or the judgment passed by lower Appellate Court. The findings as recorded by lower Appellate Court have been affirmed in appeal. The impugned judgment is well within the scope of Section 100 of CPC as it has decided the matter in view of the substantial questions of law framed for determination and on the basis of material available on record. It cannot be held that the same is beyond purview of scope of appeal.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others (1997) 8 SCC 715 has held in paragraph No.9 as under :-

"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the

record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

10. Thus grounds as have been raised by the petitioners seeking review of judgment passed in Second Appeal are not grounds on which review can be sought for. There is no error apparent on the face of record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The petition is hence found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.

(Pranay Verma) Judge Aiyer* Digitally signed by JAGDISHAN AIYER Date: 2022.05.05 13:56:21 +05'30'